Gauhati High Court
Ranee Narah vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 7 December, 2022
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010131552022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4494/2022
RANEE NARAH
D/O LATE BIJOY CH. NARAH
R/O VILL AND P.O. GHAGERMUKH AND P.S. BOGINADI
DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-787060
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY-CUM-CHAIRMAN, STATE LEVEL
COMMITTEE, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.
2:DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE OF ASSAM
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI- 781007.
3:THE COMMANDANT 13TH APBN
LILABARI
LAKHIMPUR
PIN-787051
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHAIRMAN
DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE
LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT
ASSAM
PIN-787001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. S DOLEY
Page No.# 2/4
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 07/12/2022 Heard Ms. S. Doley, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. J.K.Goswami, the learned Additional Senior Government appearing on behalf of the State respondents.
2. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the minutes of the District Level Committee regarding appointment on compassionate ground held on 28/12/2021 whereby the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of being under aged and her application being filed belatedly.
3. The brief facts of the instant case is that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 05/07/2012 while serving as a AB Constable at Commandant 13 th APBN, Lilabari, Lakhimpur. At that relevant point of time the petitioner was only 16 years. The petitioner passed out her HSLC Examination in 2013 and the Higher Secondary Examination in 2015.
4. A perusal of the Annexure-II to the writ petition shows that the petitioner's date of birth was 15/2/1997. Accordingly, the petitioner became of age to file the application in the year 15/2/2015. Be that as it may, on 11/6/2013 the petitioner's mother filed an application before the Commandant 13 th APBN, Lilabari, Lakhimpur, to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. The said application filed by the petitioner's mother was forwarded by the Office of Page No.# 3/4 the Commandant 13th APBN, Lilabari, Lakhimpur to the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur on 16.12.2013. The petitioner although attained the age of majority and was eligible to be appointed on 15/2/2015 but the petitioner submitted an application on 14/12/2021 for appointment on compassionate ground. The Commandant 13th APBN, Lilabari, Lakhimpur forwarded the name of the petitioner to the District Level Committee, Lakhimpur for consideration but the District Level Committee in its meeting held on 28/12/2021 headed by the Deputy Commissioner rejected the name of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was under aged and the application was submitted belatedly.
5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
6. This Court had issued notice on 8/8/2022 making it returnable by four weeks. The respondent No.4 has filed an affidavit- in-opposition stating inter alia that as per the Government Office Memorandum dated 2/3/2009 a candidate has to apply within three months from the date of death of the deceased. It has been further mentioned by Government letter dated 20/12/2012 the time limit for submission of the application for compassionate appointment for death of the sole bread earner was extended to one year instead of the existing three months. It has been further mentioned that as the petitioner has filed the application much belatedly, the District Level Committee was within its jurisdiction to reject the said application.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
8. A perusal of the Office Memorandum dated 2/3/2009 which was the applicable scheme for appointment on compassionate ground, clearly shows that the said application has to be filed within a period of three months from the Page No.# 4/4 date of death of a person to the respective office of the department under which the person died in harness. It was also mentioned that the application submitted after three months should not be considered. The said period of three months was however enlarged by the communication dated 20/12/2012 whereby the period of three months was extended to one year from the date of death of the sole bread earner.
9. As already observed hereinabove, the petitioner was eligible to apply on 15/2/2015 but the petitioner filed the application on 14/12/2021. Under such circumstances, the application so filed was much delayed for which the respondent authorities, more particularly the District Level Committee had committed no error in rejecting the said application. Further to that, taking into consideration the said scheme is within the domain of the Executive, this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot enlarge the said period. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the District Level Committee have rightly rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that it was delayed. Accordingly the petition stands dismissed. However, no costs is imposed in the present facts.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant